|
Post by cantador4u on Dec 6, 2009 18:47:02 GMT -5
As with so many things about the Alamo it's necessary to separate myth from reality. I've seen depictions of the arrival of the Immortal 32 reinforcements (March 1st I think) as racing in on horseback to a cheering group of defenders.
I doubt that this is true because they were challenged when they approached the gate of the Alamo and it would be hard to sneak past sentries with 32 horses shuffling and snuffling along even if they were being led. Also horses seemed to be a scarce commodity at that particular time, being one reason Fannin couldn't travel to the aid of the Alamo as he only had oxen to haul his cannon.
So how did the Immortal 32 travel to Bexar? Did they have horses but left them as they approached the Alamo or were they on foot from Gonzalez? That's about 40 miles isn't it?
Also they met someone who they felt was trying to lead them to capture, didn't they? How did we find out about this if they all died on March 6?
Paul Meske, Sun Prairie, Wisconsin
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Dec 6, 2009 21:35:47 GMT -5
Well, as I learned this past summer, the 32 were actually some of the earliest "Texas Rangers". A couple of years before the Alamo, Austin (I believe) had asked for and been granted permission to commission a group of folks to help defend the Texas settlements against Indian raids and such. From that, was born the Rangers. The 32 from Gonzalez were cut from that cloth. My guess is, yes, they had horses. Kind of hard to patrol and "range" the Texas territory without one, I think.
Also Fannin's command was just a bit larger than 32 -- somewhere around 400, more or less. I think many of them would have had horses, but not all. How many of Houston's command at San Jacinto had horses? You get the idea. If I'm off on my speculating, I'm sure someone here will jump in and correct me, but would I be surprised to learn the 32 from Gonzalez left their horse home and walked to the Alamo.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Dec 6, 2009 22:04:54 GMT -5
Well, if you go with the accepted time frame, the Gonzales Volunteers left at 2PM on Feb. 27 and arrived in the Alamo at 3AM on March 1. That is a 61 hour time frame.
On foot, at best, you would make 14 miles a day-that means at least 5 days to cover the 72 odd miles to San Antonio. You are also taking the old Gonzales Road, which swings you south out of Gonzales and then west-not the later more direct or straight road. The old road does avoid the Capote Hills. You also have to add in some possible waiting time at the Cibolo.
So, it would appear the Gonzales men made it to Bexar in two days and thirteen hours, which does tend to suggest the made most of the distance on horseback, probably paused at the Cibolo, pick up additional help, and then left the horses there and made the rest of the way in on foot.
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Dec 7, 2009 10:08:58 GMT -5
Interesting Kevin... never really looked at the time/distance ratio before. It seems they could have made the trip on foot but would have been pretty tuckered out by the time they made it to the Alamo. Horseback travel should have made it a bit faster if they were in a hurry and pressing their mounts... remember, Travis' first letter to the convention at the outset of the siege made it 170 miles give or take, in two and a half days and that was some serious riding!
Mr. Sylvain... I never really considered the Gonzales men as "rangers" even though some have applied that title to them. Of course I've heard it said on numerous occasions that "all men were rangers in early Texas"! Sloan... have you ever looked to see if these men were on the roles as a ranging company or were they simply given the moniker so folks would have something to call them?
Good question Mr. Meske!
|
|
|
Post by andrewkent1830 on Dec 7, 2009 12:02:25 GMT -5
They were mustered into service of the Provisional Government of the Republic of Texas by Byrd Lockhart on February 23, 1836, and their full name was,"Gonzales Ranging Company of Mounted Volunteers". Both the Former Texas Rangers Association and the Texas Ranger Hall of Fame at Waco recognize them as being Texas Rangers.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Dec 7, 2009 12:30:18 GMT -5
Some of this has been discussed in the past but I can't find the thread. The Gonzales 32 probably started out as the Gonzales 60 (+). This is based on three pieces of evidence the Albert Martin obituary, the Williamson Letter, and the Sutherland account. These 60 men consisted of parts of two units, some of the men under the command of 2LT George Kimbell were indeed Rangers, and were raised by Commisioner Byrd Lockhart under the Council Act of February 4th, 1836. Coincidentally, 22 men were mustered into into service under Kimbell by Lockhart on February 23rd. 14 men of this group enterred the Alamo as part of the 32. Albert Martin one of the first messengers sent by Travis on Feb 24th, arrived in his hometown, Gonzales, late on the 24th or early on the 25th. Where besides Kimbell's Rangers, he found a Volunteer Company being raised under 1LT Jackson, this company mustered into service on the 24th. According to Martin's obituary, he led this combined force of 62 men (accompanied by John W. Smith) from Gonzales on Feb 27th and enterred the Alamo on March 1st with 32 men. Adding support to this, is that MAJ Robert Williamson, at Gonzales, wrote a letter dtd March 1st, to his friend Travis, to hold on that 60 men had already departed Gonzales and should already be with Travis. This letter was apparentally carried into the Alamo by Bonham, and was found after the fall of the Alamo and published in a Mexican newspaper. John Sutherland, claims that he was part of this larger force and that part of the force broke off from the main body and rode south to link up with the forces being raised by Juan Seguin, and Chenowith's cavalry company from Goliad that Fannin had sent north earlier. The two forces planned on joining at the Cibolo Creek Crossing. Martin and Smith rode straight to the crossing and Smith probably proceded on to recon a route to the Alamo (he did the same thing with the second group he led that reached the Cibolo on March 6th). According to Sutherland, after linking up with Seguin's company they moved to Cibola but arrived after the appointed time and that the 32 had already ridden on to Bexar. Sutherland says the combined group he was with then returned to Gonzales. IIRC, Sutherland apparentally citing JW Smith, said that the 32 rode in and enterred the Alamo throught the Northern Postern. One of the 32 suffered a minor wound from friendly fire from an Alamo sentry. Stephen L. Moore wrote an excellent article for the Texas Ranger Dispatch Magazine. It can be found at: www.texasranger.org/dispatch/13/Alamo_Rangers.htm
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Dec 7, 2009 12:35:58 GMT -5
To add a little to what Wolfpack said. The account of the unknown spy who tried to lead the 32 astray also comes from John Sutherland:
By daylight on the morrow we were again in the saddle and on our way to Gonzales where, after a hard days ride, and anything else but an agreeable one to myself, we arrived about four o’clock, P. M.
So soon as we entered the town we made known our mission and sent notice to all the neighboring settlements with the news of the enemy’s arrival, calling upon the citizens to come immediately to the relief of the besieged. This was on Wednesday, the twenty-fourth. By Saturday we succeeded in getting twenty-five men who were placed under the command of Ensign Kimble. These were principally from the town of Gonzales, men of families and her best citizens. They started for San Antonio on Saturday about two o’clock P. M., with John W. Smith acting as guide. On the Cibolo they increased their force to thirty-two, which number reached Bexar about one o’clock A. M. on Tuesday, March the first. On reaching the suburbs of the city they were approached by a man on horseback who asked in English, "Do you wish to go into the fort, gentlemen?" "Yes" was the reply. "Then follow me," said he, at the same time turning his horse into the lead of the company. Smith remarked, "Boys, it’s time to be after shooting that fellow," when he put spurs to his horse, sprung into the thicket, and was out of sight in a moment, before a gun could be got to bear on him. Some supposed that this was General Woll, who was an Englishman in the Mexican service.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Dec 7, 2009 12:36:17 GMT -5
This really does tie a lot pieces together. Good stuff and very helpful. I first heard the term "Texas Rangers" attached to the Gonzalez 32 this past summer when I visited the Museum in Waco. The above posts explains a lot. Thanks.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Dec 7, 2009 17:55:55 GMT -5
Interesting Kevin... never really looked at the time/distance ratio before. It seems they could have made the trip on foot but would have been pretty tuckered out by the time they made it to the Alamo. Horseback travel should have made it a bit faster if they were in a hurry and pressing their mounts... remember, Travis' first letter to the convention at the outset of the siege made it 170 miles give or take, in two and a half days and that was some serious riding! Mr. Sylvain... I never really considered the Gonzales men as "rangers" even though some have applied that title to them. Of course I've heard it said on numerous occasions that "all men were rangers in early Texas"! Sloan... have you ever looked to see if these men were on the roles as a ranging company or were they simply given the moniker so folks would have something to call them? Good question Mr. Meske! If on foot, I would agree, very tired out. Thirty-six miles a day to get there, or a little less if they stopped at the Cibolo at 1AM on the 1st. It then takes them between 2-3 hrs to make the rest of the way into Bexar, but you would have to figure some down time in there as well.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Dec 7, 2009 20:46:20 GMT -5
Sloan... have you ever looked to see if these men were on the roles as a ranging company or were they simply given the moniker so folks would have something to call them? Aaarg! That's a good question too, but I'm not sure how to answer it. I guess it would depend on what authority formed the company, whether they elected their own officers/ sgts, supplied their own horses/ equipment, performed the duties of a ranger unit and other indicators. Lt. George Kimbell's unit seems to have a better claim to rangerdom than the remaining members of the Gonzales Relief Force, but Kimbell's men only served in this capacity for a week before they were sent on an un-ranger-like mission to a fort, where they were hemmed up without their trusty mounts. I wonder if there are any contemporary muster rolls or documents that specifically show Lt. Kimbell's company was a ranger unit. All I could find was the document below and it was written more than 2 years after the war by Byrd Lockhart. Hope I helped and didn't just confuse things more. Later. www.txgenweb9.org/muster/311133-01/01.jpg
|
|
paul
Full Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by paul on Dec 7, 2009 21:52:57 GMT -5
You are also taking the old Gonzales Road, which swings you south out of Gonzales and then west-not the later more direct or straight road. The old road does avoid the Capote Hills. Are parts of the Old Gonzales Road still visible/viewable today? Recognizable as a road? On private property?
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Dec 8, 2009 8:36:40 GMT -5
You are also taking the old Gonzales Road, which swings you south out of Gonzales and then west-not the later more direct or straight road. The old road does avoid the Capote Hills. Are parts of the Old Gonzales Road still visible/viewable today? Recognizable as a road? On private property? Private property.
|
|
|
Post by Del Groves on Aug 12, 2010 10:25:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Aug 12, 2010 17:04:44 GMT -5
I couldn't get either of those links to work, but 3 times might be the charm below. Steve Moore sent me an advance copy of his new Savage Frontier IV, which should be in the bookstores this September if not sooner. Like its predecessors SF IV is indispensable for early ranger researchers. Adieu. Link to Texas Ranger Dispatch - Issue #13 www.texasranger.org/dispatch/Backissues/Dispatch_Issue_13.pdf
|
|